Ummm.. It's called supply and demand. They are simply selling the tickets at whatever the market is willing to bear. If there is more demand then supply at a given price point, it only makes sense to raise the price. If the new price is more then you are willing to pay for entertainment, well, then don't buy it!
Why would the ISP charge you $10 less for not using torrents, when they could add the restriction, while keeping your price the same. The they could (and likely would) charge $10 more for the people who want to use them.
That being said, both of those concepts are actually a step closer to what I would like to see as a likely outcome of net neutrality: charge people for what they use. If i download 1 TB, charge me for 1TB. If I only download 50MB, charge me for that. If I want to request the highest QOS priority for all of my packets (VOIP) then charge more then if I only demand a low QOS priority (torrents).
And to even get to the point where PeerGuardian (or whatever) can see the frame, it has to pass through his firewall -- presuming that he has one. And that means he either is explicitly allowing that port through or he made the connection himself.
If you look at the screenshots, you can see he's connecting RDP to 192.168.0.1, which is the typical gateway address on most NATs. I think he might actually be running a WinXP box as a firewall. This would explain how he is seeing all of the packets, with the external destination IP. Therefore I wonder if his XP box has just been rooted.
You are in favor of the watershed, simply because watching a show scheduled at 8:00 conflicts with spending time with your kids, but 9:00 would be more convinient for you?
Microsoft is just as concerned about a profit as Google. If they can save money by reducing development and testing time, while still charging the same price they will do so. However, like Google, this may cost them in the long term.
(from:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Mod ifyGPL) Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license? You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
Not only does it collied with the definition of Open Source, it also violates the terms of use of the GPL itself.
(from:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#M odifyGPL) Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license? You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
In short, if you are going to change it, you can't mention the GPL in the license. The authors may think they are making a moral stand, but they are violating copyright (of the GPL) by doing so.
Then I must not understand the point of this line the typical approach is just to set a cookie that lets the server know that it should include a body { font-size: whatever; } rule. Why does the server need to be involved at all? Why not just let the client override it themselves?
I think you missed my point entirely. The whole purpose of CSS is that the server shouldn't need to care. It should simply allow the user to override the default fontsize of the page to the size that they need. Person A may only need base font set to 15 point, while person B may need a 22 point font. And when person C views it with a screen reader, it again shouldn't matter.
Once I saw a site for local elections where there was a link to the part of the site for visually impaired people (large font page),
Wait... are you saying that they had an entire seperate page that they made simply made the font larger? That is insane. The idea of accessible web pages is that if people need a larger font size, they should be able to select that larger font size in their viewer of choice, and it shouldn't break your page. (I.e. no images as text, etc)
it creates a psychic connection to the mind of the director of the movie, which allows the players to then output what s/he actually saw during filming.
Ahh.. that must be Lucas' plan. Once that tech is released, all versions of starwars will look like what lucas thought he filmed all those years ago..
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we know it uses pulleys, but does it run Linux?
Ummm.. It's called supply and demand. They are simply selling the tickets at whatever the market is willing to bear. If there is more demand then supply at a given price point, it only makes sense to raise the price. If the new price is more then you are willing to pay for entertainment, well, then don't buy it!
No no... the Boston tea party would be like hijacking a truck leaving Redmond, and torching the contents.
Actually, after reading the first few lines of the article, I think he's overpaid.
"I see your Schwartz is as big as mine."
Why would the ISP charge you $10 less for not using torrents, when they could add the restriction, while keeping your price the same. The they could (and likely would) charge $10 more for the people who want to use them.
That being said, both of those concepts are actually a step closer to what I would like to see as a likely outcome of net neutrality: charge people for what they use. If i download 1 TB, charge me for 1TB. If I only download 50MB, charge me for that. If I want to request the highest QOS priority for all of my packets (VOIP) then charge more then if I only demand a low QOS priority (torrents).
You might not be trying to spam, but you sure are doing one hell of a job of it.
Since when is this a bad thing? I'd rather not be forced into buying a new phone constantly, simply because it broke.
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the fact that the same thing happed 3 years ago: In South Korea, email is for old people
If you look at the screenshots, you can see he's connecting RDP to 192.168.0.1, which is the typical gateway address on most NATs. I think he might actually be running a WinXP box as a firewall. This would explain how he is seeing all of the packets, with the external destination IP. Therefore I wonder if his XP box has just been rooted.
I bike commute and trust me, gasoline engines aren't exactly oder free either.
Everyone knows you can only survive in the vacuum of space for 30 seconds!
You are in favor of the watershed, simply because watching a show scheduled at 8:00 conflicts with spending time with your kids, but 9:00 would be more convinient for you?
Microsoft is just as concerned about a profit as Google. If they can save money by reducing development and testing time, while still charging the same price they will do so. However, like Google, this may cost them in the long term.
Shouldn't that be
"to boldly use the split infinitive wizard?"
Whats wrong with someone wanting to make a living doing something they enjoy?
GSM, according to the summary.
In short, if you are going to change it, you can't mention the GPL in the license. The authors may think they are making a moral stand, but they are violating copyright (of the GPL) by doing so.
Then I must not understand the point of this line the typical approach is just to set a cookie that lets the server know that it should include a body { font-size: whatever; } rule. Why does the server need to be involved at all? Why not just let the client override it themselves?
I think you missed my point entirely. The whole purpose of CSS is that the server shouldn't need to care. It should simply allow the user to override the default fontsize of the page to the size that they need. Person A may only need base font set to 15 point, while person B may need a 22 point font. And when person C views it with a screen reader, it again shouldn't matter.